Cited by 316Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

Open access
Nentwig, Wolfgang, Bacher, Sven, Kumschick, Sabrina, Pyšek, Petr, Vilà, Montserrat·2018·Biological Invasions

Abstract

“One hundred worst” lists of alien species of the greatest concern proved useful for raising awareness of the risks and impacts of biological invasions amongst the general public, politicians and stakeholders. All lists so far have been based on expert opinion and primarily aimed at representativeness of the taxonomic and habitat diversity rather than at quantifying the harm the alien species cause. We used the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to rank 486 alien species established in Europe from a wide range of taxonomic groups to identify those with the highest environmental and socioeconomic impact. GISS assigns 12 categories of impact, each quantified on a scale from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). We ranked species by their total sum of scores and by the number of the highest impact scores. We also compared the listing based on GISS with other expert-based lists of the “worst” invaders. We propose a list of 149 alien species, comprising 54 plants, 49 invertebrates, 40 vertebrates and 6 fungi. Among the highest ranking species are one bird ( Branta canadensis ), four mammals ( Rattus norvegicus, Ondatra zibethicus, Cervus nippon, Muntiacus reevesi ), one crayfish ( Procambarus clarkii ), one mite ( Varroa destructor ), and four plants ( Acacia dealbata, Lantana camara, Pueraria lobata, Eichhornia crassipes ). In contrast to other existing expert-based “worst” lists, the GISS-based list given here highlights some alien species with high impacts that are not represented on any other list. The GISS provides an objective and transparent method to aid prioritization of alien species for management according to their impacts, applicable across taxa and habitats. Our ranking can also be used for justifying inclusion on lists such as the alien species of Union concern of the European Commission, and to fulfill Aichi target 9.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10530-017-1651-6

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The invasive alien species with the greatest impacts emerge from all taxonomic groups.

    “The IAS with the greatest impacts emerge from all taxonomic groups, as illustrated by the example of Europe.”

    From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Nentwig et al., 2018

  • The European list of aliens with highest impacts includes 149 species: 54 plants, 49 invertebrates, 40 vertebrates, and six fungi.

    “The European list of aliens with highest impacts includes 149 species: 54 plants, 49 invertebrates, 40 vertebrates, and six fungi.”

    From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Nentwig et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nentwig, W., Bacher, S., Kumschick, S., Pyšek, P., & Vilà, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Fribourg (CH)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Corresponding author
Nentwig, Wolfgang
Venue
Biological Invasions
Published
2017-12-18
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
1611-1621
ISSN
  • 1387-3547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1464
OpenAlex
W2771159618
Cited by
316
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 19
FWCI
22.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Invasions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RERO DOC (Universität Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • COST Action TD1209 Alien Challenge (TD1209)
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (CGL2015-65346R)
  • Severo Ochoa Program for Centres of Excellence (SEV-2012-0262)
  • Akademie Věd České Republiky (RVO 67985939)
  • Czech Science Foundation (14-36079G)
  • South African National Department of Environmental Affairs
  • DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Ecology and Invasive Species
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
introduced species, species ranking, environmental impact, socio-economic impacts, invasive plants, invasive invertebrates, invasive vertebrates, invasive fungi, Procambarus clarkii, Varroa destructor, Lantana camara, water hyacinth, Rattus norvegicus, Ondatra zibethicus, sika deer, Reeves's muntjac, Canada goose, invasive crayfish, invasive birds, invasive mammals, Europe

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review